Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:02:13 09/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2002 at 17:30:15, Peter McKenzie wrote: >On September 08, 2002 at 16:10:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On September 08, 2002 at 15:33:16, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>On September 08, 2002 at 13:08:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>><snip>> >>>>But the game is already over here. >>> >>>Yes agreed. In case you didn't read it, I said that already. >>>I will spell out my reasoning: >>>The point is that the program should be able to STATICALLY evaluate this type of >>>position as good for black in order to use search EARLIER in the game to avoid >>>this type of position. >>> >>>>Don't know who made yor book, but no PC can >>>>find the necessary 12.e3. Rd2 is bull. >>> >>>Rd2 is not best, but white is not lost after that move. Of course it would be >>>nice if the book had something other than Rd2, but you can't ALWAYS rely on the >>>book to get you through the opening! >>> >>>> You simply were outbooked in the game. >>> >>>The book was a small factor, more important was how Warp played after book which >>>wasn't very good! Brutus understood the position, Warp did not, therefore >>>Brutus won. >>> >>>>You simply don't have the time to make such nonsense as Rd2. The black Bc4 is a >>>>known motif. Without book comps would be easy bully. How coul a comp calculate >>>>the later king safety?? >>> >>>Its not so hard, you can see from the replies that crafty, isichess and diep >>>have a reasonable idea. Some other amateur programs aren't so good here. >>> >>>If you continue to assume I am an idiot I won't bother replying to your posts >>>:-) >> >>Of course not! Did my English sound so negative? It was simply my judgement > >Yes, somewhat. Not to worry, thanks for your comments anyway. > > that >>Rd2 is wrong. e3 must be played instead. Rd2 loses tempi. If you want, the >>"later" position is complex and easy at the same time. The main point is the >>lacking o-o in a position where Black is fully developped and, and that is the >>most important point, White cannot make the o-o because of the Bc4! But the >>position has many more weaknesses of White. Normally you would like to play Nd2 >>to exchange the Ne4. But this is not possible due to tactics. Because the Q is >>not protected. > >I know Rd2 is dubious, but that was never the point of my post. >No need to lecture chess to me (well not tooo much), I had 2300 fide rating some >(ok many) years ago you know :-) Sorry, if I went too far, but I didn't know your number. It's surely good enough. :) But honestly, I wasn't teaching you; I was arguing for my position. The move is so ugly that you must forbid it in the book. I see a little contradiction in your position. It is a book position but you want to examine why the later position must be seen as weak by your program to be able to see - without book - that Rd2 is wrong? As I said the possibility Ne4 and the Rd2 must move by force, and the lost of two tempi Rd1, Rd2 and the need of further three tempi for castling (e3, B~, o-o) should be implemented as weak. Why Rd2 shouldn't be treated like h3x~g4 or h6x~g5? There you can't wait for the evaluation of later position either. I must add if necessary that I'm really a complete alien to chess programming. So please do never take anything I write as a direct critic of your job of a programmer. On the other side I would hope that you might understand why such comments from a complete outsider could perhaps give interesting ideas at times. Hope this was the case here. > >> >>Let me summarize your interest and the analyses this way. The move Rd2 is a move >>you should never play if you have _not_ made deep analyses. Rd2 is an odd move >>so to speak. That this move is odd is not so much a question of the "later" >>position you gave us. Rd2 could be shown wrong in the position it was played, I > >What? You are proposing I should have pruned out Rd2 at ply 1 using general >principles? For a human that is possible, but if you try to do that with a >program you will have a disaster! >Your comments seem to indicate a lack of understanding about how a chess program >chooses a move?! Misunderstanding. I meant your book should contain e3 as the correct motif. Rd1-d2 is a bad motif. > >There is a big difference between being able to say, as a chess player, 'this >move is bad because of X, Y, and Z' and knowing what to change in a program to >avoid such moves. My judgement is that most of the bad moves played by Warp vs >Brutus were caused by poor static evaluation of the centralised white king (this >position is just one example), therefore it did not have enough incentive to >castle. I don't see any reason to change my judgement. But this question is way beyond me of course. King safety is direct programming. Thanks. Rolf Tueschen > >cheers, >Peter > >>would pretend. Simply because White hasn't o-o yet. Also because bNe4 is always >>a direct attack against the R. More chess advice is wanted. >> >>I hope you ask more questions, not that I could always give the answer. BTW it >>was the first time that I wrote my opinion to a programmer in a direct question >>about chess. I must take care that it's not me in the end who is the chess idiot >>after all. :) >> >>Rolf Tueschen >> >>> >>>Peter >>> >>>> >>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Regards, >>>>>>Gerd
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.